I do apologize for assuming you had an idea what we were discussing. I believe it was your assumption that there are no other means of recourse for a contractual employee through our justice system. You beat that horse to death in several replies did you not? I will type very slowly this time so we can keep on the same page. Let's just say that the grievance was lost. At that point, the member has every right to take further action through the court system up to and including suing the company or the union. If the grievance is still pending, they can not pursue through the courts. Simple enough?
That particular individual I spoke of happens to be a friend of mine and I do know all the circumstances regarding his termination. I also know under the scope of our agreement he would not have been terminated. I know this because I deal with these cases frequently at my own barn. We have true progressive discipline that coincides with very specific language in our labor agreement. His particular termination would have more than likely been settled in the "steps" meeting and never even made it to panel. They had nothing under the scope of our agreement in other words.
I did not assume that there were no other means..........I read it in the link I posted. It does go on to say that in cases that involve discrimination and a few other areas might be able to be handled in court (which could happen regardless of a contract or not), but that contract matters generally could only be settled through the established process. You seem to profess a lot of knowledge on the subject matter, so I thought maybe you could provide some tangible evidence that would refute what I had read.........
I have been doing a little more research on the subject of Grievance processes and would like to hear your thoughts on "trading of grievances" and where that would stand within the "fair and satisfactory" results that you were referring to in one of the earlier posts? I will leave it at that and retire to the background until I come up with other questions regarding subjects you might be able to help me find an answer to.......appreciate your help.
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1111&context=bjell
Trading of Grievances
The hearing process is well adapted and used for the purpose of
trading grievances under the guise of adjudicating each case on its merits.
Elliot Azoff, in his article on joint committees, pointed out that "the joint
committee is structured so as to insure maximization and exploitation of
opportunities for wheeling and dealing."32 The large number of cases
withdrawn from the agenda demonstrate the usefulness of the meeting
for settling grievances, and on that I venture no comments. The focus
here is on the use of the adjudicatory form to disguise consensual settlement
or trading of grievances.
Prehearing discussion of grievances invites disguised settlements and
trades. If one or more panel members agree to vote for the other side,
there is, in effect, a settlement, but it will take the form of a decision by
the panel. The quid pro quo for such an agreement may be a reciprocal
vote on another grievance so that two decisions, one for the employer
and one for the union, may be the implementation of a single trade.
Even though there are no advance agreements, prescreening enables
the panel members to know the cases which will come before them, and
to establish priorities as to those which must be won and the those which
can, or ought to, be lost. As individual cases are heard and decided there
can be implicit or explicit understandings among the panel members that
agreement by one side on one case will be reciprocated with agreement
by the other side on a later case. Azoff has observed that "
n the constant
quid pro quo of the committee system, there is always a suspicion
that an employee is being sacrificed to appease an employer, to buy his
good will for future negotiations or in return for past favors rendered." 33
Trading of grievances is also invited by the changing roles of the
players. Grievance committee rules generally prohibit a panel member
from sitting on a case which involves his or her local union or employer.
Individual panel members may thereby be required to step down in particular
cases, and when they do they often become-the representative of
their local union or employer in presenting the case. They thus act as an
advocate in a case decided by the panel on which they sit for other cases.
The inducement for implicit or explicit trading becomes obvious.
In some joint grievance committees, decisions are not handed down